Osprey Ready Rates Stalled; Trautman Wants Better

Osprey Ready Rates Stalled; Trautman Wants Better

Farnborough Air Show – After some seven months of flying in Afghanistan the percentage of the Osprey fleet ready for flight each day has stalled out at roughly 70 percent, a figure the head of Marine aviation says must be improved.

Lt. Gen. George Trautman told DoD Buzz in an exclusive interview that those rates are “not good enough for me.” While they are roughly similar to readiness rates for the Marines’ venerable CH-53 Sea Stallion, he said he expects more from the Osprey. He placed most of the blame for the Osprey readiness rates on Afghanistan’s incredibly fine dust and the fact that parts for the Ospreys must make incredibly long and expensive trips to get to the front.

Afghanistan is “the harshest environment,” he said, and that has led to parts wearing out faster than expected. Combine the environment with the enormous distances parts must be shipped and the limited space for them on transports and you have a serious challenge. To keep up the flow of parts, Trautman said he is pressuring companies to turn out critically need parts in greater numbers and with greater speed. “It’s not as easy as going down to Walmart and buying some screws you forgot to buy,” he said. The general praised Bell-Boeing, the plane’s maker, for coming up with dust screens for the nacelles and to reduce damage to wiring.


While Afghanistan is uniquely challenging, it has also been the source of some good news for the Osprey, Trautman said. The plane has “proved its survivability,” sustaining a number of hits from 12.7 rounds, a more lethal load than the American .50 caliber.

Trautman also confirmed an earlier story by DoD Buzz that the V-22’s unique capabilities has allowed Marines to craft new tactics, tactics they used with certain effect during the battle to retake Marja. In particular, he said the aircraft is “so quiet, so maneuverable, so fast” that it can come into a combat zone “before the enemy knows it’s there.” He said Taliban have been caught flat– footed as Ospreys have slipped in less than 200 yards from a house: “You see a huge dust cloud and Marines run out of it. Then the enemy comes running out of the buildings. They don’t even hear them (Ospreys) come in.”

Finally, the BAE Systems Remote Guardian underbelly gun system is working well but is not getting a great deal of use because of the tactics and procedures being used by the Marines, he said.

Share |

Join the Conversation

What a dogs breakfast of excuses. So the marines have replaces an aging relic with horrendous maintenance problems with a brand new aircraft will horrendous maintenance problems.

Given that the Taliban are still running around the cluster of houses that is the “town” of Marja I guess when he says “tactics they used with certain effect”, the “effect” was stalemate.

If you knew anything about the scenario you would know that more Taliban tend to reoccupy the place after the Marines have swept it and left. That is what is making this war so long and costly, it is like a game of whack-a-mole.

“The plane has “proved its survivability,” sustaining a number of hits from 12.7 rounds, a more lethal load than the American .50 caliber.”

Hmmm…lets see. There are 25.4mm in an inch, so 12.7mm = tada…0.5″

Oh please..get as grip

They’re referring to the specific ammunition… in this case the .50 BMG versus the 12.7x108mm. The 12.7x108mm is the Russian equivalent to the .50 BMG but is longer (the .50 BMG is 12.7x99mm) and the cartridge case has a 350 grain capacity versus the .50 BMG’s 290 grain capacity.

Besides the specifications, the 12.7x108mm has proven to have similar range ballistics compared to the American .50 BMG but is more powerful in terms of penetration capabilities.

So, the article is correct. You are just uninformed.

Dispel,

Just because a bullet is the same diameter does not mean it has the same velocity… .22 and a .220 swift? There are many examples…

The difference between the two (Russian 12.7mm and American .50 cal) is pretty minmal, but typically you don’t want either hitting your aircraft.

Obviously it isn’t comparable to an Apache returning after taking a huge number of hits, but ideally the speed of the V-22 will involve in it getting hit less than a typical transport helicopter anyway.

Problem lies in the governments contracting. 1st thing the government needs to require is that the contractor has a full time ability to provide spare parts — especialy thos which are propriatary. Too many times we have found that the contractor(s) only produce spare parts only after the yearly production has been completed or at an increased cost for an urgent request because it interrupts thier production schedule. What used to occur and the military needs to go back to is when a new piece of gear was selected, a number of them where taken to a testing facility and flown, driven, shot or what ever around the clock in different weather –climate –and terrain conditions until they had found at what interval every component of the new item required replacement (a hydraulic packing has a life span of 14 to 16 months then replace it every 12 months). once this was figured out and documented then the new piece of gear when purchased for issue also had to come with all the identified reair parts, one set for the recieving unit and one set for the supply system. This was a good practice they need to return to on all equipment purchases.

What you are not aware of is the fact that a .50 cal is AP or armor piercing while a 12.7 is HEI. It packs more of a punch

“…the BAE Systems Remote Guardian underbelly gun system is working well but is not getting a great deal of use because of the tactics and procedures being used by the Marines.”

So it turns out that the turret gun is a security blanket after all, and the weight would have been better put to fuel or cargo? Gosh, I can’t remember ANYONE predicting THAT. :rolleyes:

Soon as the troops are deployed the bird is airborne again to provide security and close air support as was done with helos in the past. The MARINES are hitting them so fast and controlling the area that the helos are not having to lay down fire for them which is a good thing.

Size doesnt matter in this case — the 408 chytek is smaller but has a longer range, flatter trajectory and more knock down, pennetration and blunt force trauma with a standard FMJ than a 50 cal M8/ M20/ or MK211 API, which along with the reduced recoil is why it is now a favorite of snipers.

Where your knowledge from weapons systems come ‚Oblat??? Halo ‚Call of Dutty ‚Ghost Recon,or Splinter Cell???

In addition to what Boomer said I’d add in, “it’s better to have a weapon and end up not needing it then to need it and not have it.” Now let’s relook at the quote, “…the BAE Systems Remote Guardian underbelly gun system is working well but is not getting a great deal of use because of the tactics and procedures being used by the Marines.”

“Working well” and “but is not getting a great deal of use” means it is used and when it’s used it works well. So they have it and DO use it and it WORKS WELL. Are you getting the point yet?

dispel manages to dispel rumors that he knows anything about weapons!! The size of the round is one measure but the amount of propellant behind it is more important. We are not told what kind of rounds were being compared and that is a question I’d like to ask. Can we assume that these were 12.7 mm rounds fired at pretty close range, and the impact pattern indicates they were fired from a fixed machine gun? How does the powder load on the 12.7mm machine gun bullet compare to the propellant behind a standard 50 cal machine gun bullet?

Good Morning Folks,

I agree with Oblat. Lt. General Trautman had to keep the spin going, to many Marines are returning fro Iraq and Afghanistan where the Ospery has been “operational” with horror stories.

The Ospery is just another PR problem the Marines don’t need.

To. CharlesHouston. The problem with the weapons system is that it’s belly mounted. As a retired AF Lt. Col., but again I might be assuming to much here, I would think you could see the problem. The Ospery operates much like a helo. it’s most vulnerable time to enemy ground fire is when it’s SITTING in an LZ, or sitting on it’s weapon system.

Personally I think the terrorists designed this system and sold it to the Marines who it appears have no respect for the obvious.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Just for the record there isn’t a peace of equipment in Afghanistan that doesn’t break down quicker than normal. The V22 is the best thing in the operation for troop transport. If you think the country isn’t hard on equipment talk to the motor pool personal. Up time for helicopters is worse than the V22 and when you compare the range and speed there is no contest.
I retired from Bell Helicopter after 42 yrs and have heard all the negative bs before its not worth the space to argue with idiots.
Larry

Look for my reply posted here: the 12.7x108mm has a 350 grain capacity versus the .50 BMG’s 290 grain capacity.

“it’s better to have a weapon and end up not needing it then to need it and not have it.”

Why only one gun turret, then? Why not three? Why not five? After all, isn’t it better to have it and not need it, etc.?

Seems to me that a lighter aircraft could get out of trouble faster. And that support is better done by dedicated aircraft designed for the role than by a half-assed bolt-on job. And that reduced mechanical complexity would improve those ready rates. But then, I’m just a simple aerospace engineer.

If anything, I’d argue that it’s a GOOD THING that the turret doesn’t get used. If the turret gets used, it means your transports are coming into direct contact, and that means that you’ve got a bigger screwup than another thirty-cal is going to solve!

Some Marine maintainers have an “Osprey Sucks” page at Facebook. http://​www​.facebook​.com/​g​r​o​u​p​.​p​h​p​?​v​=​w​a​l​l​&​a​m​p​;​ref=...

And the General will soon claim the V-22 is invisible, with a klingon cloaking device?

If the V-22 is so fast and agile, how did it get it? Can we see some photos of the damage?

The point of the story isn’t about calibers or muzzle velocity. It’s about the Marine Corps wasting much political capital to keep and promote a high tech wonder plane that is to fragile to hold up in a combat zone. The CH-46 was an old but very dependable aircraft. The 53 is newer and much more cabable, but has always been a maintainers nightmare. The Osprey is a beautiful piece of work, but more suited to the civilian market, not the dusty and rugged environment of Afghanistan. An expensive and complex machine is not what is needed. A dependable, rugged and defendable HELICOPTER is what the mission calls for.

And all the freakin experts come crawling out of the wood work, go back to your arm chairs and let the boots on the ground determine if the Osprey is working or not.

If the maintainence crew didn’t complain… they wouldn’t be the maintainence crew.

Why doesn’t the Corps deploy more than ten MV-22s to Afghanistan? It has over 100, and none are in Iraq or Japan? Why do the Marines rely on Army helos for most ops?

They will and have.…and it (the Osprey) won’t.

Boots on the ground may not want to give their opinion. Remember Gen. Stanley McChrystal? Most of the military heirachy does along with his aides. That is who I would like to hear from, but doubt that it will happen.

Trophy — yes you answered almost all of my questions! If I had only kept reading for another minute…

yes, we are all for a helo armed and armored like a tank trhat can carry a company o f Marines with hot day HOGE of 4000 ft in no wind conditions. Just his ex helo pilots 2cents to all the guys that never have flown a helo or even know what Bernoulli’s equation is all about, let alone lift, drag, power requirements.…..AMF

Anyone want to blow the whistle here about this Osprey mishap?
http://​www​.law360​.com/​r​e​g​i​s​t​r​a​t​i​o​n​s​/​u​s​e​r​_​r​e​g​i​s​tra...

Boeing quickly paid him off.

Let’s ensure we give credit where credit is due. From the DVIDS article titled “US Army Aviation Air Assaults Coalition Force into Marjah, Afghanistan”:

“Nearly 300 Marines and Afghan security forces air assaulted into Marjah, Afghanistan, under the hours of darkness, Feb. 13.”

“Twelve UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters and CH-47F Chinook helicopters, command and control helicopters, and aerial security provided by AH-64 Apache helicopters from TF Pegasus facilitated the air assault of Kilo Company, 3/6 Marines in seizing their objective area.”

It goes on to say that the Army did 120 air assaults over 10 months of its 12 month tour…and I assure Mr. former Bell worker that the OR rate was considerably better than 70% over that period.

What dedicated helo can provide the close in support you are talking about? Are any of them able to keep up with the MV-22. As has been stated before its better to have that gun on the MV-22 then to not have any support at all. Should we stop using the MV-22 until they can find that dedicated aircraft?

Anyone know why the squadron CO was replaced after five months of a seven month Afghan deployment? http://​www​.marines​.mil/​u​n​i​t​/​m​c​a​s​n​e​w​r​i​v​e​r​/​P​a​g​e​s​/VM...

Thomas Ricks, of “Washington Post” fame, writes a popular blog at “Foreign Policy” magazine. He posted a series of insightful, first hand accounts of lessons from Afghanistan ‚written by a Marine Corps Chief Warrant Officer “Keith Marine.” In a Jan 26, 2010 post, the CWO2 stated.

“Not that we can do anything about it but realize it and make adjustments but our pilots and aircraft suck in comparison to the Army and Air Force. I noticed it before when these units have flown for me but not like this time. We used Army guys for some training, along with Marines, prior to D-Day and the differences were very noticeable and undeniable even amongst our own FACs. [Marine pilots serving as ground-based Forward Air Controllers] The Army guys will come in and land at the grid you give them, with very limited dispersion between birds — allowing you to link up with your other elements, and will set the thing right down on the deck in the inbound flight appearing not to lose much speed. In comparison, Marine pilots will bring in their aircraft and attempt several flaring techniques and then wave off. Sooner or later they will land in the midst of a brown out and probably a few hundred meters off target with dispersion of about ½ click [1000 yards] between aircraft is the norm. Luckily the Army and Air Force guys will drop right where you want them to pick up casualties, we are lucky to have them.

I have heard a lot of excuses on why this is and here are the two most plausible ones. 1) They have superior aircraft with better handling capabilities; 2) Their pilots are pilots, whereas our pilots fill a dozen different billets and get about a tenth of the actual stick time these guys do. Like most of you, I love the Corps and it hurts me to say it but I think we have been chasing the wrong aircraft. We don’t need to create a capability; the other branches already have it in the aircraft they use. We need that capability for when they aren’t there. You just can’t fit a 46 or 53 and definitely not an Osprey [V-22] where these things will land.”

That was his last post because he contacted Ricks and told him that he would no longer submit accounts, and asked Ricks not to post some he had already sent. No explanation was provided, so one can only speculate why he was silenced.

The flight restrictions below are from the current V-22 NATOPS (pilot’s manual):

VTOL/CONV: Minimum separation is 250 ft cockpit-to-cockpit and 25 ft of step up. During approach and landing phase, maintain step up until lead lands or maintain 250 ft separation. While maintaining 250 ft separation, avoid 5 to 7 o’clock position downwind of the upwind aircraft.
a. Crossovers in descending, turning flight prohibited.
b. Crossovers in descending, wings level flight prohibited with ROD in excess of 500 fpm.
c. Crossovers shall maintain at least 50 ft of step-up.

___________________

These V-22 limits were imposed because the wake or downwash from another aircraft can affect one tiltrotor before the other, causing an instant snap roll and crash. As a result, V-22s must remain a football field apart and fly at different altitudes. A “wave” of V-22s is never more than three aircraft, and only one can take-off or land at a time. Such restrictions do not apply to helicopters.

KE=½mv² Or Kenetic Energy equals half of Mass times Velocity squared. Diameter is not a good representation of mass of the round (5.56 comes in lots of sizes 45grain, 55, 65, 75, etc) but even if it was the speed of the round makes a far bigger difference in the energy imparted to target.

Most likely his time in command was up. The duration of command is typically for a set number of months, and when your time on the clock has expired its time for a change of command.

There is a change of command ceremony going on somewhere in the US military almost every day of the year.

Say what you want about Dispel, but it was a somewhat poorly worded statement.

Fred.. Using Army helos for most ops, where did you get this tidbit of misinformation. The Marines have been flying and using their own 46’s,53’s and Ospreys for over a year in theater… Flew in them all and all over our AO when I was there.

Test post from USMC Strategic Initatives Group (SIG), please do not reply to this comment.

DFL is correct. It was simply the end of Lt.Col. Bianca’s tour.

Test post? What the heck does that mean? Isn’t the ‘I’ in SIG for Initiatives? Go ahead and enter the discussion, Marines.

The Raufoss Mk.211 — is a .50 caliber BMG (12.7x99mm NATO) multipurpose anti-material projectile.The multipurpose name is based on the projectile having an armor-piercing (tungsten core), an explosive, and an incendiary component, thus making it capable of penetrating lightly armored targets and causing damage to personnel inside the target after penetration. It is a suitable round for engaging helicopters, aircraft and lightly armored vehicles, as well as unarmored vehicles, and it has the capability of igniting jet fuel. The Mk.211 has about the same destructive power as a standard 20 mm round against such targets.The Mk.211 has become very popular as .50 cal sniper ammunition, for use in the Barrett M82 rifle, as well as other .50 BMG rifles. It is also often used in heavy machine guns, for example the M2 Browning. Due to its popularity several U.S. arms manufacturers produce the round under license.

Well, let’s see. There are 6 operational squadrons, all on the East Coast. One is in Afghanistan, one is afloat with a MEU. One is in workups for the next MEU. One is in workups for the next Afghanistan deployment. So 2/3 are committed right now. Good enough for you?

The other birds are at the training squadron, which is obviously non-deployable. There’s VMX-22, which does OT, also non-deployable. They are starting to phase in on the West Coast, but those units aren’t trained yet.

You’re misunderstanding the parameters.

4+ aircraft is definitely possible. I’ve done it myself. The step-up requirement merely means that instead of the dash-last aircraft landing first, as with normal rotorcraft, the –1 lands first. They can also land closer than 250′, as long as this is adhered to.

Sand and dessert conditons have killed many “technically advanced weapons”. As for the spare parts, they ALL should be flying from the Supply Depots to the frontlines! Any other means of shippment is stupid, the officials in power should know that by now,. That is really a p-poor excuse, lack of parts!!!!
Steve, Retired

I worry that if a conflict will breaks out some where else in the world, the V-22 supply situation will become far worse. I think at some point of time they should look at the aircraft, see where the parts are failing and develop an improved version. (i.e. if something in the engine is not working well in Afghanistan replace that part with something new instead of developing a new engine). That being said I got to agree with steve.

I think the fact that the Boeing is looking at the V-22 to compete in the new presidential aircraft program speaks a lot about how the reliability of the aircraft has improved.

Byron,
Several weeks ago you posted some info about the AN-124 being offered in the U.S. but did not provide any support and some people questioned it. This article does provide some support for what you said (http://​www​.defenseindustrydaily​.com/​m​o​r​e​-​a​n​1​2​4​s​-​o​n​-​t​h​e​-​w​a​y​-​a​n​t​o​n​o​v​-​s​i​g​n​s​-​a​g​r​e​e​m​e​n​t​-​w​i​t​h​-​k​e​y​-​c​u​s​t​o​m​e​r​s​-​0​2​9​13/)

The V-22 was already rejected for a Presidential helicopter for safety reasons and its small cabin, which is 25% smaller than the V-22. See http://​www​.boeing​.com specs to see the real stats, not the bogus specs posted at NavAir and by USMC.

Defenders highlight the V-22’s supposed greater speed, range, and altitude, mostly because Bell and the Marine Corps distribute specs that greatly exaggerate the V-22’s capabilities. The V-22 has no greater range than modern helicopters. This was explained by America’s leading rotorcraft expert, Dr. J. Gordon Leishman, several years ago: Is there a Case for the Tiltrotor?

The V-22 can fly higher than helicopters, up to 24,000 feet. However, its fragile airframe cannot be pressurized, so pilots must wear arctic gear and oxygen masks when above 10,000 feet, and safety regulations preclude flying more than an hour in those conditions. Passengers cannot be carried above 10,000 feet, so V-22s cruise at 8000 feet, something helicopters can do. In addition, the V-22 can fly high only in the airplane mode. In the helicopter mode, it cannot hover as high as helicopters because it has small twisted proprotors. As a result, helicopters can take off and land vertically at much higher altitudes than the V-22.

Flying at higher altitude to avoid ground fire is not wise against modern enemies that have medium to high altitude air defense systems. In those cases, flying low is much safer to deny them a direct shot. In addition, flying high is often impractical. Basic helicopter missions are less than 50 miles. Such trips take much longer if the aircraft must spiral up to 8000 feet, then spiral back down into an LZ. Moreover, only a fool would spiral down into a potentially hot LZ, thus providing an enemy ample time target the incoming aircraft. Flying low is faster and safer since it surprises the enemy, saves fuel, and allows a faster turnaround.

As for speed, the V-22 cannot fly faster if it carries an external load, which it rarely attempts for safety reasons. With internal loads, it must land slower than a helicopter to avoid rolling over, with a firm 800 fpm descent restriction. The V-22 can fly faster than a helicopter, but not two times faster as is often claimed. Boeing lists its top speed at 250 knots, yet back in 1969 a Bell UH-1 “533” modified with two extra engines demonstrated 275 knots. (left) The Marines showed no interest because payload capacity is more important..

Modern helicopters like the CH-53K will cruise at 160 knots, and that new helicopter can carry five times more than the V-22 with far more range, even though both are the same size! The V-22 demonstrated 230 knots during the OPEVAL, but it has since gained some 2000 lbs in empty weight as it was fully outfitted, so it flies at around 220 knots at 3000 feet. However, most lift missions are at much lower altitude, where the V-22’s cruise speed falls below 200 knots. Finally, the V-22 cannot load, unload, or refuel faster than helicopters, and can’t do anything if broke down in a hangar. So yes, the V-22 is around 30% faster than helicopters, but that is its only advantage. Since it carries less than half the payload of similar size helicopters, it delivers much less cargo per day.

So what if the Marine Corps valued payload 40 years ago. Doctrines change. Now you hear the Marine Corps talk about trying to lighten up their equipment loads to maintain their status as a light, rapidly-deployable force. The V-22 reflects this doctrine in which a sacrifice in payload is made for speed.

As the article noted it allows an element of surprise, which is a force multiplier that can more than make up for the quantitative lack of combat troops delivered.

The V-22 is a first-generation production (previous military tilt-rotors were prototypes or technology demonstrators), so of course there’s going to be teething problems. The first military fixed-wing aircraft had tons of problems like delaminating propellers that wouldn’t last more than a few hours of flight. During the hunt for Poncho Villa in the early 1900’s, there were dozens of aircraft involved in the expeditions, but so few would remain airworthy.

The Harrier also had numerous safety issues during it’s early years. It still has a less-than-average safety record compared to conventional aircraft and it’s payload is rather small (especially for VTOL), but it’s a trade-off for it’s unique capabilities.

Wow, good job summarizing Carlton Meyer’s talking points. Any actual facts you’d care to share with the class? I’ve yet to see a helo that can fly from NC to FL in one leg, in three hours. Did that in a Block A V-22. Or go coast to coast, with 2 fuel stops, without breaking crew day. Did that too. That same trip in a –46 was a week-long road trip. Pretty much the same deal with a –53.
One wouldn’t “spiral down” unless approaching a secure area. Believe me, a V-22 screaming down out of altitude sanctuary is less vulnerable than a helo. Even helos do a lot less flying low now–unless there’s a known MANPAD threat, they go high to avoid small arms–but an airchair commando wouldn’t know that.

I won’t talk about the V-22s speeds, but it tops out WELL above 230, and cruises over 200 KCAS. Even when the KCAS goes below 200 at altitude, it’s going close to 300 TAS–but a non-pilot wouldn’t know that either. “Basic” helicopter missions are 50 miles or less? I guess the “basic” cavalry mission was 10 miles or less, but then they replaced the horses with trucks and the “basic” mission changed.
Externals are perfectly safe in an Osprey. Again, I’ve done it a hundred times. Now, you can’t fix physics. They slow it down. You’re towing a boat with a Ferrari. Nevertheless externals are not an everyday mission anywhere in the Marine Corps. Besides, that’s what the 53s are really for.
Lastly, actual helo pilots know that ALL helos are told not to fly at greater than 800fpm descent at less than 40 knots. The Osprey is HARDER to get INTO VRS and EASIER to get OUT OF VRS than normal helos.
It’s been long enough. I thought the critics might actually get some facts.

Last two posts came out of order, since the system made me split them up for length.

Did you write the whatever it is (can’t call it an article due to its utter lack of journalism or integrity, propaganda perhaps) linked below?
http://​www​.g2mil​.com/​V​-​2​2​d​i​s​a​s​t​e​r​.​htm

If you are in fact the author I would like to take a moment to offer my congratulations on your complete lack of understanding on how things actually work in the real world of military aviation in general and rotary wing in particular. Ignorance is truly bliss.

If you are not the author perhaps you might want to consider a better source for your plagiarism.

RE: CH-46 was an old but very dependable aircraft.
No. The Phrog is worn out, and this was seen by the Corps years ago, and this point has been public knowledge for at least 7 years: http://​www​.foxnews​.com/​s​t​o​r​y​/​0​,​2​9​3​3​,​8​1​7​4​4​,​0​0​.​h​tml

Heh. Good call. Your reference to ‘g2mil’ would more accurately read ” Complete lack of understanding on how things actually work in the real world of (Fill in the blank) .…”

That site’s philosophical looking glass is stuck on SEA circa 1969.

Find anyone in leadership that is ‘happy’ with any MC rate under 100%. And take a picture of them because the world will pay big money for proof of unicorns.

The relevance of ’70%’ would have to be put in context before I would decide how big a problem it is. First, what is the fleet size deployed? With a small fleet size, a limited number of maintenence hits have a bigger impact on a small fleet than on a larger fleet — Just ask a B-2 maintainer. Second, what is the TREND? Third, do I understand what factors are actually driving the MC Rate/trend and do I have solutions?
From the article it sounds like the Marines have a handle on things and the General appears to be generally happy with where things are going, but then again he lives in the real world with concepts such as ‘there is no perfect way to tell the future’ and where everyone’s heard of a ‘learning curve’.

They’re probably testing their filtering software to see if it lets them post here.

Good post. “We’ve worked our optempo to support current readiness rates, and we’re getting everything done with current rates, but of course we’d be happier and be able to do more if readiness rates were higher” gets reported as “Marines slam Osprey readiness rates as inadequate”.

You’ve got it with the filtering software…tough getting things out of the Pentagon, even if that means something as simple as hitting ‘enter’ to post a comment.

Actually the readiness trend is going backwards. According to Gen Trautman’s testimony in Congress this year, the MC rates were highest in Iraq, lower in the 22 MEU and lower still in the Stan. (Links at: http://​nextnavy​.com/​m​v​-​2​2​-​g​e​n​e​r​a​l​-​t​r​a​u​t​m​a​n​-​y​o​u​r​-​j​o​b​-​i​s​-​o​n​-​l​i​n​e​-1/ ) went from around 71.6 percent down to less than 70%…

That isn’t all: The MC rates for Block B airframes are even lower in CONUS. Sparing out parts and all that.

But it is an unsustainable practice. If, to keep 7 of 10 birds operational in the field we’ve got to sideline 40-odd block b’s at home, we are going to have a hard time supporting more than a single squadron.

And whereas a trained professional Military Operations Analyst and Researcher would not draw a conclusion from the date provided so far in this saga (the internals of the data and their drivers are not publicly known), it’s somehow reassuring to know that a Hah-vahd trained Immunology and Infectious Disease PhD has no such reservation — a sort of a continuity with Epidemiology’s great tradition of statistical abuse comforts one that all is right in the world.
1. What portion of the NMC rate is due to an artificial threshold for PMC being held higher than otherwise due to the newness of the system, operating conditions, or operational techniques? Have the standards been held constant? Is the standard artificially high because of the political spotlight on the system?
2. What portion of NMC is NMCS and what part is NMCM? Have the ratios changed relative to the times and locations?
3. What are the identified drivers within each category, and do they vary by time and place?
4. How are the maintenance data collection practices skewing the data if at all? Is there GIGO?
And then the analysis would begin. Data first. Analysis second. Conclusions third.

Oh, pish. You’re probably one of those people who thinks that the CRU should have released their raw data.

Well, lookie here, if it ain’t the second coming of Philip McCord Morse!

Smart guy, the MV-22 Program Office has these data, and has had three years to analyze and act upon the conclusions. And at the end of the day we’ve got 70% MC deployed and, oh, 60% MC CONUS.

Acceptable? My humble conclusion is no.

I assume from the heartbreaking analytical work of staggering genius you wrote yesterday, “From the article it sounds like the Marines have a handle on things and the General appears to be generally happy with where things are going…” that you are fine with this level of performance.

A pity if that is so.

In reality 70% is not that bad considering that there are no V22 reserves over there as are for every thing else in that hell hole. We are in a continuous repair mode stateside for ch46’s — 53’s — 60’s — humvees — mraps — m1’s — bradleys — strykers — small arms and so forth that are breaking down in country, replaced by a reseve unit and sent to us with a new reserve unit sent back to the sandbox before we even get the bad vehicle or aircraft back here stateside. The same for spare parts — engines — rotors — electronic packages — tires and wheels. The V22 doesnt have this kind of support yet because it is too new and not enough units have been purchased yet to even stand up all the units let alone reserves. Very few drivers or pilots in country operate the same vehicle the length of thier entire deployment. So 70% operational is pretty darn good this far into the fray.

I think you’re right about the MC Rate and small numbers effect Boomer –Overall, it’s probably “not that bad”. But Bell/Boeing is on the hook for an 80% threshold MC Rate, so the squeeze is on until that is reached. In the meantime, the Corps has to withstand the political machinations and second-guessing.
When I was doing LRS OR full time, I demonstrated the “Tyranny of Small Numbers” on Cannibalization and MC rates using different fleet sizes. Also, if DoD is running true to form, the Supply Chain Management including stand-up of organic depot repair support is probably running behind schedule due to annual funding constraints.If the USMC thinks they can’t get there from here, they won’t be shy about it.

“71.6 percent down to less than 70%” is what you quoted in a previous post. A few percentage points of MC difference means that the sky is falling? Really?

How many missions have been dropped because of that 70%ish MC rate? So long as its stayed above 60%, I’m willing to wager that they have dropped zero missions because of the MC rate.

I’m sorry to call you out on this, but to be so hung up on percentage points for such a very deceptive figure as MC is somewhat foolish. What percentage of the unit’s pilots are FMC every day too? What percentage of the customers? What about the maintainers?

Its a war in a very bad place. As such, 70% MC rate on a brand new airframe, totally unlike anything else in the supply chain, operating on the far side of the world in one of the worst environments for rotary wing with very little accumulated institutional knowledge is NOT such a bad rate.

I agree with the Lt. Gen. that 70% is not good enough, but it will get better. And it certainly aint that bad either.

You may assume that by “From the article it sounds like the Marines have a handle on things and the General appears to be generally happy with where things are going…” that I mean that the Marine Corps leadership, and more specifically the General, are apparently doing what they can, with what they have, and are moving forward according to some plan to attain higher MC Rates. You may further assume a) that as long as the General remains in his position, his superiors believe the same for a reason b) even a ‘solution’ in hand takes time to field and more time to have detectable effect and c) that I KNOW there are factors outside the control of any number of General Officers with heavy influence on MC Rates, and that the information in the public domain does not support panic, hopelessness and/or baseless calls of “He’s a Witch– Burn Him!” from the bleachers, no matter how ‘humble’ they are.

Morse? A true ‘Renaissance Man’. But my analytical forefathers have a more AF/West Coast/RANDian lineage: Raymond, Collbohm & Kent/ Welsh & Builder/…

correction: “Welch & Builder”

Yeah a lot of folks just wont addmit or actualy realize just how many spare vehicles and aircraft the Army has in country to maintain thier operational status and even with all the spares cannot maintain 100% because of the conditions over there. They also dont realize that the sand over there is nothing like we have in the US, how it sticks and cakes up on everything especialy when wet acting more like clay than sand. Anything with unsealed bearings — packings — or that has an air intake will not last long.

Get a grip on what? Even flown in combat? Vietnam perhaps????

Do you really know what you’re talking about? Doesn’t look/sound/read like it. You’re blowing smoke about something with which you are obviously ignorant. If you haven’t experienced history, at least read about it before you write about something with which you are obviously ignorant.

These folks write like they do because they obviously haven’t lived the truth enough to understand context.

So what piece of equipment has been perfect? The Phrog in Vietnam??? What is the alternative? Do we go backwards to when we all walked? That had its drawbacks too. Get real; get a life; read a bit of history to put this all in context.

So, what do we do? Go backwards? How far back? To Hannibal’s elephants? (which had their reliability issues too), to being exclusively foot-mobile ( a podiatrist’s dream)? Do we go backwards or do we adopt and adapt to technology to extend the capability of the tried-and-true bi-pedal locomotion? What is the alternative? The starship Enterprise is still a few generations away.….

Perfect canidate for the new Marine 1.

The v-22 is quite agile. I have seen it do rolls and flips. It is amazing how agile it is for such a big ship. The design / idea has been around for quite some time but technology has just finally caught up to the idea making it a reality.. They are working on some new ideas for the v-22. It is constantly being improved. But as you know there is a lot of red tape involved and a lot of testing before they will send it out in the field.
Don’t be surprised if you see a metal storm system put in place in the future on the craft.

we are working hard and putting in a lot of overtime to supply the v-22.. We have a good o.t.d. rate for the v-22 and we will continue to do what it takes to make the best aircraft possible. There are upgrades being designed constantly. But you must work within budget constraints.
As far as testing “What used to occur and the military needs to go back to is when a new piece of gear was selected, a number of them where taken to a testing facility and flown, driven, shot or what ever around the clock in different weather –climate –and terrain conditions” this is done. I have seen a v-22 that is still undergoing stress test that has been getting twisted and shaken for over 5 years that I know of.

steve I agree with you. this parts should be there way before the need and soldiers in need of supplies should be are frist priority in any supplies they need these soldiers are fighting for are freedom. and we need to get the ball rolling qick in there supplies and needs they should come frist in any thing they need and ask for. God Bless you Generals LT“s Sgt“s and all military Branch . will pray that your needs and conditons get better Mary

dessert conditions? Like, they exceeded GTOW because the Marines pigged out on sno-cones? (lol)

“Why doesn’t the Corps deploy more than ten MV-22s to Afghanistan? It has over 100, and none are in Iraq or Japan? Why do the Marines rely on Army helos for most ops? ”

I flew CH-53Es in Afghanistan 2004, for 7 months…most of the time, we were carrying Army troops to FOBs, because their helos were either on the ground for maintenance or waiting for their “big mission.” We had an AWESOME readiness rate, carried out 100% of our frags, and dealt with the maintenance issues, just like any Marine squadron does. Prior planning for parts and maintainers is the key…like that’s a new story. Mission first, Bullshit last.

When an author writes using euphemisms instead of explicit specifications, then a critic may appear “uninformed” in his/her responses. It is the author who demonstrates either misinformation or the lack of accurate reporting techniques.

Let’s get the facts straight.

Cartridge Use
M2 Ball In marksmanship training, against personnel, and light materiel targets.
M1 Tracer To aid in observing fire-secondary purposes are for incendiary effect and for signaling.
M2 Armor-piercing Against armored aircraft and lightly armored vehicles, concrete shelters, and other bullet-resisting targets.
M1 Incendiary Incendiary effect-especially against aircraft.
M8 Armor-piercing Combined armor-piercing and Incendiary effect.
M20 Armor-piercing Combined armor-piercing and incendiary effect, with the additional tracer feature.
M1 Blank For simulated fire (contains no bullet).
M2 Dummy For training (completely inert).
Mk 211 MP Raufoss Multipurpose Ammunition
M858 SRTA Short Range Training Ammunition
M860 SRTA Short Range Training Ammunition
M903 SLAP Saboted Light Armor Penetrator (SLAP)
M962 SLAPT Saboted Light Armor Penetrator Tracer (SLAPT)
XM1022 antipersonnel
GDT Generic Dim Tracer

Being the fine actor of many nominee war films, I feel that this war is easier than most people think. Lose the osprey, and we need to train our fighting men how to fly. This would be the most significant change to the human fightingforce since the dawn of time. I also hear all this jibber jabber about how hard this war is to fight, I mean come on there’s the enemy go kill him. Duh.

Yours truly,
Gene Hackman– award winning actor.

The Afgahn desert dust should have been no surprise-it’s been fouling our T55 and T700 helicopter engines for over a decade. The Osprey was also designed, specifically, to fly long distances with VTOL capabilty-so what’s the lame excuse about long distances??? We will be at war with Islam for the next decade, easily, and most of it in the desert. Spare part is another lame excuse: exotic equipment with no COTS equivalent to smothout spare parts production is a boner: there is no civilian Osprey application that wouldn’t drive the company into bankruptcy. The Osprey is hubris: self destructive arrogance. The idea in coutner insurgent warfare is out last the enemy, because that’s all the enemy is tryig to do to us. Flashy, shock and awe technology is basically no match for a 1/4 pickup full of AKs and RPG 7’s, in that kind of game.

Spiffy!

Reply!

If the DOD would standardize the aircraft for the Army, Marines and AF they would be better off. The marines always have had the bastardized versions of the best thing, yet they continue to have problems. The new CH47 F model has gone to afghanistan, Iraq and returned with only needing a quick reset and back into action Even the old D models are takin care of business over there. . Parts are consistent with vendors and Boeing and 24 hour abvailabilty. The 47 will also carry more that the Osprey or the CH 46. The Ch47’s can also fly the altitudes needed in Afghanistan. Nuff said.

CH-47 compares to the Marine’s H-53 helo as ‘heavy lift’, and it is too slow for the missions of the V-22.
Most iimportantly, if you want to make a round-trip between ship and 100 miles inland with a CH-47 you’d have to beach your ship to do it, whereas you could sail ~100 miles off the coast and do it with a V-22.

Yes, the CH-47 is a good bird, but we already have the 53 for the heavy lift mission.

The 47 also can’t fly at well over 200 KCAS.

How is it possible to get more powder in a case that is smaller than the US 12.7mm round? If they are getting more performance out of the Russian round, it is because of bullet design and chemistry. Something I’ve been trying to pound into DOD’s head every since John Bull developed better artillery the same way.

We must be talking about a different Russian weapon than I’m used to. I used to shoot the DShKM, which has less performance than the US HBMG. Maybe they got a new one?!

My TNW M3 HBMG puts lead out at 2900 fps, unless your shooting AA ammunition. The DShK puts out roughly 850 fps, which is a pig compared to the US Browning design!

I’m wondering just what are these people talking about!?

I’ve used the green tip, but not the green/silver tip bullet. Those green tips a pretty awesome rounds! They have a barely legal patch of high explosive in them, that performs better than APIT — depending on your target.

I was not aware that a Russian design was being used by our manufactures, very good post sgtyates!!

I think some are confused, and thinking they are using the original Russian case for this round. But I believe the Wiki on this, it is more likely deployed using the HBMG case.

Couldn’t agree more about the CH-47F. It is the airframe for Afghanistan. As I type this, there are two brand new Fs hovering on a taxiway about 200 yards away. I work at (but not for) a remote site for countermeasure installation for Fs right off of the factory floor and a Army Aviation flight training for the F model. We also see a good deal of HH-47 flight training… What an impressive SAR/airlift ship.

The IPs have numerous hours in everything from 46s, 60s, 53s and 47s. They all have Arseghanistan experience. To a man they say the 47 is the most versatile airframe in DoD inventory. Ok it’s loud. very loud; however, it has the power to reach altitudes with heavy loads. It is wicked fast and can get in and out of hot LZs quickly and absorb huge amounts of combat damage.

These pilots are “plugged in” to the rotorcraft community and according to them, all V-22 should be given to USSOCOM for small, stealthy, rapid insertion/extraction missions. Send the whole lot to Hurlburt. Replace the 46s with 47s and call it a day. The fight is with the Corp who finally have a “flashy” new airframe and need it for pilot recruitment and retention.

While I am a huge fan of the 47 airframe, these are not my opinions. They are the comments by men who know far more about rotorcraft operation then I ever will.

I believe they are referring to the DShK, yes.

I think you have been misled by units of measurement. the V0 of a .50BMG and a 12.7x108 are almost indentical:

DShK 802 gr 52.0 g API B32 2800 ft/s 860 m/s 19,230 J
Browning: 800 gr 52 g Barnes 2,895 ft/s 882 m/s 20,195 J

I think someone has seen the m/s v0 and thought it might have been a ft/s measurement and then given you the wrong information.

Thank you very much for that reply David! Yes — I got the specs from a reloading guide — no wonder people are blowing up their weapons after following these sheets; it was mis-marked fps instead of mps!

I could have sworn those cases were shorter, when I was using that weapon; must be an optical illusion resulting from the type of links used in the Russian system. I’ve apparently been fooling myself about the performance comparison to my HBMG also. One always wants to think the home team has better. I have been planning to improve my sniper reloads by using better bullets, and Hi-Lo pressure chemistry with the powders. This has greatly enhance performance in smaller calibers; so now I just have to find the right powder for those huge 100mm +/- cases!

Never mind; David answered my question. Just goes to show; familiarity breeds contempt; I’ve been working with this round since ’74, and made too many assumptions!!!

My philosophy — Learn something new, every day!! =D

One factor, I and my partner have been working on is rotational verlocity also; however with that factor; the life of the bullet may not be any farther than a few inches/feet from the muzzle!

Some of us have had our boots on the ground and in the air as well, so don’t worry, I feel most of us are qualified to have an opinion. Some of these guys are now in the development side and have enough college and other practical experience too; so don’t worry you head none on the subject. Let the chips fall where they may!

So what are they doing shipping aircraft to a combat zone without proper spare parts being available?

Lifes are a stake here!

I know what happens they end up flying some aircraft that shouldn’t be flying because they don’t have the parts to change out and have to keep some aircraft to complete missions. That happened often when I was in the Army and is nothing new but it’s not right.

Why would you replace 46s with non-navalized heavy-lift helos? If we went down an all-heavy lift road, then we’d replace the 46s with 53s, the Marine heavy-lift aircraft.

The 47 is a good aircraft for Afghanistan, no doubt. We aren’t always going to be in Afghanistan. Someday the Marine Corps will have to project power at a distance, from the sea. That’s what the Ospreys are for.

The Osprey is way more “wicked fast” than the 47, by the way!

sounds like the v22 is a waste of money because it does’nt have the load capacity of helicopter.

Sounds like you haven’t been paying attention.

The MV-22 lifts as much or more than most medium lift helos. It doesn’t lift as much as a small set of HEAVY LIFT helos. While its empty weight, admittedly, is about the same as some heavy-lift birds, its asset is that it goes faster, farther, and, if need be, higher than legacy helicopters. And before someone quotes some bogus stats from Carlton Meyer or POGO or some other pseudo-journalist jerkoffs, DON’T.

Whether the speed and range is worth it depends on your view about the nature of war and the tactics thereof. Your mileage may vary.

Okay phrogdriver! I promise! I won’t!

Good post BTW!

I will never back down from my personal opinion. The MV-22 Osprey is just the latest dog-and-pony show. A huge waste of money. What is the cost-per-airframe? What’s the cost per airframe in LIVES LOST? It makes more sense, to me, to have kept the MV-22 as a test/development bird, and better invested all that taxpayer$$ in the next-generation, re-designed 46’s & 53’s, and Harriers. OK, the Osprey is A LITTLE BIT faster, more range, etc., than 46’s & 53’s. So what? The whole idea of a tilt/rotary “aero-copter” is, to me, a dreaming man’s little boy fantasy. I do hate to bruise my friends’ fragile USMC ego, but the Osprey is a freakin’ joke. I’m very sorry, but there it is. But hey, the Osprey is a very cool looking aircraft, if I don’t think about it’s greatest drawback– the lost opportunities in lives & $$$ wasted on it. God, please, prove me wrong in the long-term!…Osprey=Hindenburg…both “good ideas”, but in REALITY? Not so much…

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement